The worst book you've ever read or had to have read

So your peeve is with certain people who read the book and not with the book itself?

I confess, I don't attend a university, and I don't know any philosophy students. I'm just a reader. Other than that, I'm married, I have a wife who doesn't read and co-workers that I rarely ever discuss books with. I have some friends who read Dean Koontz-like fiction and I attend a Unitarian Universalist church where I know a couple people who have read the book in question and found it interesting, none of whom I could ever compare to an "angsty teen."

I was unaware of the existence of the philosophy students to which you refer.

Charlie

PS. The Catcher in the Rye was on my required reading list in high school, some 25 years ago. I didn't read it at the time. I'm actually considering reading it, simply because it's considered a classic.

PPS. I understand having a peeve with fans of a book, as much or more than the book itself. I feel that way about fans of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged who use those books to uphold trickle-down, deregulatory economic policies.

Actually, there are also certain people who flaunt a certain anthology of ancient mythologies. Some of them even carry that book from door to door and hand me pamphlets suggesting I'll burn in fire if I don't read and believe their anthology, which I suspect your philosophy student acquaintances have not done.

 

Oof! That was cold. It did make me chuckle though.

I've read the book in question, and I liked it. Though I did find it preachy on the other side. I don't think it was written in a way that is accessible to religious people. So there winds up being little reason for the book because he's mostly going to be preaching to the choir. It just seems that he wasn't thinking much about his audience when he wrote it.

I know I would be upset if someone was telling me what I believed was wrong in the same fashion he used in the book. tcol's response is what I would have expected.

But hey, go read it!

 

Not many Christians read it in its entirety, I would imagine, but I know of several local churches where Pastors (or whatever they're called in the other denominations (wrote demon-inations....Freudian slip much?)) take excerpts, read them to the church-goers and then break them apart with Christian logic. Hardly fair, honest or accurate, but its how they roll.

(Then you bring up Richard Dawkins for, say, the Blind Watchmaker, and they flame you like the dirty Darwinian you are...)

 

Precisely =)

Regarding Catcher in the Rye: Again, it's rather overhyped by its more dedicated fanbase but as long as you take it for what it is then it's perfectly readable.

It's written from the perspective of a whining, conflicted, angst-ridden teenager (debatable) with little cohesion, purpose, etc. which some people find tiresome to read. Not all "classics" are written "classically" if that makes sense.


Regarding the idea of "worst book" I make my assessment based on how bad it is versus how much it's lauded (the sheer number of posts bemoaning Twilight's abhorrent levels of popularity for example).

Complaining about books that are really bad is redundant because they go out of print after a month or two, are rarely bought, never read and spend the rest of eternity mouldering in the slap-happy bargain bin.

And as we all know, slappy doesn't sell very well.[/obscure anime reference]


EDIT: re:Aaron's Pastors

Hahaha, I love (read: loathe) it when they do that.

"Scientists think they know everything. THE MISSING LINK IS STILL MISSING!"

Oh, the silly things they say... how depressing.

 

I don't think Dawkins intended audience was those who disagree with him. I think his intended audience was those who agree with him, and don't have the ammunition to counter things said by those who disagree.

One can avow to be a skeptic, but then, a religious person may say in response to that:

"Oh yeah? Well, how could such a complex world happen by accident?"

The skeptic could reply:

"Well, um, er, I don't know... Well, actually, I never considered it."

Or, the skeptic may have read Richard Dawkins, and may say:

"Your God theory contains the same problem. If there's a God that created the universe, that God must be very complex, but your God has no creator. How did such a complex God happen by accident? You resolve that by saying, 'God always existed.' I merely cut out the middle man by saying, 'The complex universe always existed.' "

or:

"It's very simple, how a complex world and complex life can occur: It happens gradually. Imagine you are looking at a tall mountain with a sheer, flat side, and you say, 'How can you get all the way up there, from down here? It's impossible, unless God reached down and picked you up and put you there!" Then imagine you walk to the other side of that mountain, and you see a long, winding path going deep into the wooded opposite side of the mountain. That's how evolution works: It's an extremely long and complex process, like a winding path up a mountain."

Naturally, I'm paraphrasing Dawkins from memory, but it sure beats hemming and hawing at the simplest arguments.

It is by providing ammunition for fellow skeptics that Dawkins points may indirectly reach those who disagree.

In this manner, I think Dawkins book was quite successful, and therefore, not the worst book, which is of course, the topic of this thread.

Charlie

PS. As a very active Unitarian Universalist, I'm actually one of the religious liberals who Dawkins also had an issue with in his book -- but I think Dawkins error there lies in assuming that all liberal religions are theistic religions, simply by virtue of being religions. He may be unaware that one can be religious without being theistic.

 

The worst book, by the way, the more I think about it, remains The New Testament Code by Robert Eisenman, which I posted many months ago as my "worst book" selection.

No matter what anyone can say about books they disagree with in regards to politics or religion, those books are generally readable.

No matter how much one might not like the Catcher in the Rye, or Twilight. (The latter was not a great book. But I read it.) Or books by Stephen King, or Dan Brown, it's physically possible to read them.

I seriously believe it's physically impossible to read this book. It is literally unreadable. I was disappointed because the topic of the New Testament Code actually interested me -- I'm an odd sort, I read lots of odd books regarding religion.

The New Testament Code is 1,053 pages long. It has small print, and the print goes out to the margins.

Googling, I found a sample in Google Books, and decided to type out a small portion, maintaining his punctuation, italics, etc. Please, tell me if you'd want to read 1,053 pages like this:

Note that what I've posted here is one sentence (see, only one period, at the end) of a 1,053 page book. Though I wonder if a period was intended before "In applying." I honestly cannot tell.

Look like a fun read? I've read a lot of religious writing, I know what all the words mean, but I have no idea what the author was saying here. In fact, there's not a sentence in the book I understood. He lost me somewhere between his hyphens and nested phrases. I have to dissect the thing just to figure out that that which has "gone by the board" is the thrust of the exegesis.

Didn't your eyes glaze over, just trying to read that one sentence, that little tiny quote that I provided?

Given a choice between reading 1,053 pages exactly like the above, would you rather read that, or any of the other books mentioned on this thread?

(If you made it through that quote, and I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't, you only have 1,052 and 9/10ths of a page left!)

I seriously think this book wins the prize. Worst book, ever!

Please, read the quote, and tell me you disagree, and you think you'd rather read the New Testament Code than any of the other books listed here in this thread.

 

That is pretty bad Charlie, but it's just about par for the course with Biblical exegesis- there's usually so many complicated statements that need justification and explanation that monstrosities like that turn up ever once in a while. As for a choice between it or John Galt's speech... it's tough. Having been forced to read Hegel and Heidegger, I've come up with a way of breaking sentences like that down and diagramming what they're saying. Of course, if there's too many like that then my notebook will be full!

 

I don't like Nicholas Sparks very much. He's just not a very good writer IMO.

 

The Great Gatsby. I loathed that book.

 

OUTSTANDING POST BY CHARLIEVER

I came on hear with a clear idea of which book I would name as my least favourite book ever but after reading that hae had to strongly re-consider. Although I suppose as someone who has never really read an awful lot of the New Testament I will have to go with my original idea.

Sole Survivor by Dean koontz

I didn't actually manage to finish this book either I felt that the whole idea behind the story was just ridiculous and the writing was cliched and corny. I managed about 80 pages before confining that particular specimen to some forgotten corner of a bookshelf in a seldom visited part of my house.

 

I fixed that for you.

I love The Great Gatsby! How can you not love that novel? Some of the best bits in that book, and one of my favourite lines of all time --"I hope she’ll be a fool—that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool."
And Steinbeck --what are you guys talking about?! I bawled and bawled during Of Mice and Men, and The Pearl was just!

As I defend some of the modern classics, I have to stab another.

Faulkner's As I Lay Dying could not have been any worse. It really couldnt have.

I was supposed to read it for a class assignment, and I just couldnt. After the first two chapters, I just couldnt touch it again. I didnt even put forth the effort to SparkNote it, and I even told my prof that I didnt read it. She did have me defend why I disliked it so, and she took my reasoning into consideration... and gave me points for it on my unit paper, haha!

I had a lot of fun talking about the novel (comedy or tragedy? I say comedy), and instead of writing about how wonderful it was in my unit paper, I talked about how terrible the characters were, but the actual writing of it... Yikes. I will never read another Faulkner novel. Sorry, buddy!

 

I agree, The Great Gatsby was probably the best novel I read in high school- some of the images like the Valley of Dust still stand out in my mind. Likewise, I see Catcher in the Rye mentioned often in this thread. When it was assigned in school, I didn't really like it. A few months ago I had to read it again, and I found so much I'd overlooked before- for those that didn't like it give it another try in a few years.

As for Faulkner, I once had someone explain to me over two hours how the Sound and the Fury is to be read so that it makes sense. This explanation helped influence my decision to major in the Humanities instead of English

 

I may be an anomaly, but it's rare that I have 'hated' a book. There are books that don't interest me and I put them down, not even giving them the privilege of being read.

I, too, find it amusing that many of the replies in this thread are books from High school English classes. Me...? I devoured almost everything my English teachers gave me in High School and went on to major in English in University, taking courses like Victorian Literature, Shakespeare, Canadian Poetry, War Poets. Of course that degree really did nothing for my career aside from giving me a university degree (which has opened many doors) but I digress..

Books that I put aside after a couple of chapters include:
Anything by Winston Churchill - he is VERY dry and difficult to get into
Nelson Demille - The Gate House (normally I enjoy his dry wit and oddball characters, but after half a book - yes I lasted that long - I was still waiting for some type of plot to develop...)

I have read almost all the classics and enjoyed them to the point I plan to do a re-read of many of them.

It is interesting to note that many of the replies in this thread are reflected in this list of worst books of all time.

 

For me it is TWILIGHT. I am like a few people that wonder what a the big fuss of a book is when there is all of a sudden a large fanbase etc. I did it in 2001 when the epic Harry Potter PS/SS came out, I bought all four books while on a holidays (in a caravan) and I sat up all night/morning reading it by the light of a caravan park light. I whispered to myself (as to not wake the parents) "OMG I got to read the next one" I was 17 and never ever felt that much wanting more from a book in my life. I got the little jokes etc.

So when I heard of Twilight I was wondering hmmm what is so good. I bought it with an open mind sat down and after three chapters I so bored. The writing is so full of purple prose and the ever soppy mush of Romance creeping from Bella's thoughts of Edward "He is so beautiful like an angel."
Made me retch. I forced myself into reading the whole book and thought why, why is this woman romancing the notion of stalking and abuse? Why isi she ruining the Native American culture? Especially for the impressionable teens and older kids. (I work in a school as an aide and almost choked when I saw a girl of 11 reading Twilight during quiet time).

Oh the only good thing was the restisting sex chapter near the end. Yeah that was awesome. But yes, no good plot, shallow characters. Mary Sue Bella (who is so beautiful and everyone befriends her the first day of school and all the boys want to go out with her. Yet she doesn't think she is beautiful) and the Sparkle Vampire who must resist her because of her smell.
Sparkles wtf Vampires don't sparkle in the sun. They turn to Ash.

At least J.K.Rowling stuck the way mythological creatures were written about.

 

I foolishly bought a copy of Betrayal at Falador, by T.S. Church, simply because once or twice I played the game it is based on - and for $17.99 no less!!

Needless to say, it was terrible. There was a lot of repitition in the words, and one review I've read since quoted this sentence:

"She stepped carefully, balancing her weight before she took a single
step... She stepped forward..."

There were also a few attempts at being almost philosophical, and I remember one comment about having good teeth, which means you're able to eat and if you're able to eat then you have the strength to work... so... yeah...

And the chapter titles revealed way, way too much about what was in them, to the affect that once I was two or three chapters in and had the basic gist of the story, I could almost foretell what was going to happen just by the title of the chapter.

Having said that, the storyline was actually drew me in quite well, but not enough to save the book as a whole, and certainly not enough for $17.99!

$17.99... pah!

 

The Alchemist. The fact that it was highly recommended had me anxiously awaiting some big plot development but the more it went on, the more I just wanted to get rid of it.

I don't know why that's even a book.

 

Villette.

However my least favorite book is now The New Testament Code as posted above. Because there is no excuse for that kind of thing. If you must clarify every bit of a sentence, use a table, diagram, graph, headings and sub-headings, or even color code it.

 

Well. First off I have to say that I think the most boring book, just by how it is written is Lord of the Flies. Although, once we got in class and actually went through the symbols and motifs, it was pretty cool but the book itself was pretty boring.

And I know that someone is going to flame me for this but I have to say something. I really dont get why Twilight is so great. Sure I read it when it first came out but now it is just sucks. The first one was good, I threw New Moon at the wall, Eclips was alright, and Breaking Dawn made me mad. For one, its isnt very well written. It doesnt strech the mind. Its just there and all explained. That bored me. Im reading Aldous Huxley for pete sake! And it didnt end on a bad note. There was no big fight. But, this is only my opinion. I like it, and its an alright book, but not obsession worthy. Now, the Host, thats a diffrent story.

 

i don't particarly like Jane Austin and Charles dickens just too much description but i also hate to kill a mockingbird it was just boring

 

Twilight. Just... Twilight.

 

The Lord of The Rings.

 

Oh My God.

Twilight

Stephanie Meyer wrote it in six months and that shows like a lamp right in front of your face.

Bella collapses into a useless heap, thinking she is NOTHING when her creepy stalker, "boyfriend" leaves her because he decides he has to because he loves her too much.

What?

 

Twilight. The entire series. I DESPISE Bella. I mean seriously, she spends 3/4 of the novels whining about how hot Edward is. I wanted to kill her xD

I know this is a child's book, but I detested Stargirl.

I'm not Charles Dickens biggest fan either tbh. Bleak House is ok, but the Tale of Two Cities was soooooo boring.

I can't believe so many people hate Jane Austen. Emma is one of my favourite novels!

Oh, and crime is my favourite genre so I have to mention that I really dislike Kinda Fairstein's writing style.

 

The worst book I've ever read was a book that was entirely in dialect that's so rich I need a native to read it...I was lost. I also can't stand Shakespheare when I have to analyze him to death and read every single little thing he wrote and what's about him (school killed shakespheare for me). And right now that's all I can think of.

 

So I'm getting the feeling that Twilight is not loved in literary circles. :0